Here’s How Even the Theory of Moral Relativism Relies on the Natural Law

If you have been in the pro-life movement for very long, you have certainly heard arguments supporting the theory of moral relativism.

The proponents for abortion, euthanasia, or any other aspect of the Culture of Death rely on this philosophy as their rationalization.

But how do you respond? Are you equipped to dialogue on this topic?

Even if you think you are, I think you will still gain some great insights in this three-part series, which starts with this post. We will contrast the theory of moral relativism to the Theory of Natural Law.

In this post we will explore whether the theory of moral relativism has any viability, since the Culture of Death relies on it so heavily.

In the second post we will show how exactly moral relativism relies on Natural Law to subsist. We will turn to author, C.S. Lewis for help.

And in the third and final post we will explore how moral relativists lord others, the very people they claim to be setting free. Pope Saint John Paul the Great will offer us assistance there.

Thus, men owe each other recognition of individual rights, as they are inherent in each individual human being. Also, absolute truth does exist and can be known.

Whereas, moral relativism says that morality is relative, by definition. The theory of moral relativism teaches people can define for themselves their own ethics, as there are no absolute truths. Every man is an island unto himself. No one can tell another what to do.

It sounds like a decent proposition, but it has a fatal flaw that must be exposed.

THE FATAL FLAW OF THE THEORY OF MORAL RELATIVISM

To say, “There is no absolute truth” is self-contradictory.

Moral relativism relies on an absolute truth in its declaration there is no absolute truth. In other words, the theory of moral relativism says something absolutely does not exist. But to make an absolute statement admits an absolute truth. It falls on its face.

All these components of the Culture of Death take their roots in the theory of moral relativism. This will be discussed further in the next two posts.

Until we can recognize such errors in reasoning and expose them, we’ll continue to be cooked alive like the proverbial frog in the warming pot of water.

Look for my subsequent post to discuss how the theory of moral relativism causes its proponents to contradict themselves further. They use the Natural Law to lord over others, the very people they claim to be setting free.

YOUR TURN

What’s your take on the theory of moral relativism?
Do you have another simple argument to show why it fails?
Please share your thoughts below.

Are you a Christian? Where do you suppose morality comes from? You didn’t get the idea that Abortion is wrong from the bible… or that it is wrong to own, beat, and rape slaves. Because it isn’t in there. You are literally proving morality is relative by being against those things.

Psalm 137:9 Blesses infanticide. Deuteronomy 13 commands Genocide, codified into the law… And quite a bit more. Jesus even gave a parable that ended with a moral saying the slave SHOULD be beaten with many stripes.

You can try and criticize secular moral reasoning all you like, but I can EASILY prove, you don’t have a better idea. Flawed or fallible it may be, but if its the best we’ve got, it’s the best we’ve got.

“God-given morality” always reduces to something being right or wrong “because some guy said God said so”. No part of that process is remotely objective, or beneficial…. and it should be obvious it sets people up to be exploited.

Finally, this posts argument is utterly asinine. “To say, “There is no absolute truth” is self-contradictory.”

No, it isn’t. Because we aren’t saying the statement is absolute truth. We are saying we can’t know absolute truth. This is the foundation of all honest philosophy, it’s called Fallibilism, and if you don’t understand why it’s important, you need to go back to school until you get it, and stop writing about stuff you don’t understand.

“There is no absolute truth” is not the same thing as “We do not know what absolute truth is.” On this we agree. But denying something obvious does not make it nonexistent, if you were honest with yourself.

I started watching your video but I had to push stop. It attempts to refute an argument which I am not making, if you had read my article.

James Nagel

I did read your article. You complain about moral relativism. This video explicitly defines morality using terms that are coherent and empirically verifiable. It shows why objective morality (or moral realism) is not coherent or consistent, nor is any faith-based definition for that concept. It further goes on to explain how human morality arises from self-interested agents operating under interdependent social frameworks. Not everything in the video has to be about YOU in order to contain information that is still relevant to what you’ve said.

You also complain about “absolute truth”, which is a known contradiction in terms. Truth is not a “thing” but a label that we assign to propositions. Propositions can either be true or false, but there is no such thing as raw “essence of truthiness” unto itself. There is also no such thing as a universal truth assignment function, which means any proposition you think is true can, in principle be deemed false by others. If you want something that is truly universal and absolute, then the correct term is “objective reality,” or the “external world.” But since we live under the egocentric position, no synthetic proposition about that world can ever be “known” with absolute perfection.

This is all basic philosophy-101 material, and you should take the time to learn it before saying things that are demonstrably incoherent.

Cip

“But since we live under the egocentric position, no synthetic proposition about that world can ever be “known” with absolute perfection.”
Is it Objective Reality that we live under an egocentric position?
Do you see where I’m going with this?

Cip

“We are saying we can’t know absolute truth.”
How do we know we can’t know absolute truth? To prove this assertion you will either have to use absolute truths, or you will have to say it does not need to be proven because it is obvious.
If you choose the latter route, well, it is not obvious to me or Kevin…

James Nagel

“Is it Objective Reality that we live under an egocentric position?”

That is an utterly incoherent question. What you probably meant to ask was, “is it an objective fact about reality that we under the egocentric position?” In which case, no, I don’t see where you’re going with this. These concepts are epistemology 101. All I have available to me is my sense data and mental awareness – nothing else. Sure, I can attempt to form models of what is “beyond” that awareness, but any attempt at such will be fallible, incomplete, and thus subject to philosophical skepticism. That state of affairs is, by definition, the “egocentric position.”

So where does immediate subjective perception fit into the set of “objective reality?” Is my subjective awareness a subset of some greater “objective” whole? Or is that awareness, by definition, a subjective fact that only I can perceive but no one else? I tend to lean towards the latter, because it draws a distinction between my subjective perceptions and the greater “mind-independent” world beyond. But that is not the same thing as my true propositions being a matter of mere opinion.

Cip

Let me clarify.
First you talk about the difference between absolute truth and objective reality, which really just seemed like you were arguing about semantics more than anything else. But let’s go back to the statement: “But since we live under the egocentric position, no synthetic
proposition about that world can ever be “known” with absolute
perfection.”

What I was getting at is that if the statement is true, it must also apply to itself. And if it applies to itself, we cannot know that statement to be true with absolute perfection.

But it seemed like you were stating that the statement was true with absolute perfection.

Totally right. If there is no absolute truth, than the statement, “There is not absolute truth” cannot be absolutely true. If if it not absolutely true that there is no absolute truth, then absolute truth must exist. Two sentences which prove the existence of absolute truth.

Get Your FREE eBook!

Sign up here to receive ProLife365 blog posts straight to your inbox and receive your FREE copy of the eBook, Cold Showers: How Catholic Men Can Pummel Porn Addiction with Mortification!

Enter your first nameEnter your e-mail address

We respect your privacy and will never share your information.

As Featured On

SPECIAL 10% OFF DISCOUNT TO PROLIFE365.COM READERSJust enter the promo code "7A6QIJ" (no quotes) at checkout at Mobicip.com, one of the nation's top Internet filter services!